Like Stink on Poo....

[RiverRaider]

Thats how I would be on this boat if I lived closer... looks like a SeaDart with real hatches... I'm drooling on my keyboard!!!
http://cgi.ebay.com/15-KAYAK-WILDERNESS-SYSTEMS-FREEDOM...tem#ebayphotohosting (http://cgi.ebay.com/15-KAYAK-WILDERNESS-SYSTEMS-FREEDOM-15-SIT-ON-TOP_W0QQitemZ230038845932QQihZ013QQcategoryZ36122Q QrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting)

[JonS]

But it isn't. We had a few several years ago. It's tippy and not as fast as the 17' dart. the kayak has been discontinued and not missed.

[Socrates_thinks]

Gee what a range of opinions. I'm with River on this one. The Freedom, like the Scupper Pro, was a great, great design. Tippy? That's relative, heck I thought my Scupper Pro was tippy when I first got it. Same when I moved up (or down if you will, in primary) to the Necky Spike. Same when I obtained my Seda Revenge. And of course when my butt first graced my Skua.

I don't even wanna talk about the Mako XT surfski at 19 inches. Thought I'd lost my marbles.

But trust me - every time you reach up, go for a bit more performance you will end up thankful. And the ride you thought was so tippy magically becomes "stable" once you quickly get your chops. Heck, the Scupper Pro feels like an absolute barge now.

Personally I find the SD17 to be a very heavy, overrated design. Anyone who believes the sponsons don't engage under normal paddling/conditions is in for a rude awakening. Not that you can't fish from any kayak.

I do agree that the Freedom is a sweet, sweet design - don't hesitate to buy one if you are so fortunate to find one (but most hang onto em, much like the Necky Spike). Great speed and super manuevrability, seaworthy. But if you can wait, there's some awful nice Freedom lookalikes comin (keep readin).

It is important to know that we have been the victims of a trend. WS and OK have battled it out in a race to the bottom, stressing primary stability over performance. WS discontinued the Freedom, OK/Johnson trashed the Spike (after buying Necky) and the fantastic Scupper Pro.

Fortunately, the internet has exposed us to fine designs from Australia, S. Africa, England and France. My "Superyaks" included. RTM continues to produce the Pro and you will soon see a return to Freedom-like designs.

The kind that take your breath away and cause drool to drip...
.
http://ftlauderdaleyakfishingclub.org/images/mysteryak.jpg
.
That's a Pro next to it. How does 14'x 25" x 46 lb. sound? Look like a Freedom? You bet it does, and this kayak is soon to hit our shores, if it hasn't already.

Thank gawd...

[RiverRaider]

Jimbo the SD 17 and the SD 14 are as advertised, fast plastic with a clever (patented) hull design's.

I had oppurtunity to paddle the SD 17 just once, I paddle the SD 14 frequently. both are heavy boats in fact the SD 17 is an absolute BEAST off the water at (80? Lbs I think the later models were a little lighter ) and 17' long. I had to port the boat (with assistance) about 25 yards and then down a set of wooden steps to the shore it was big akward and heavy! The SD 14 is more more managable.

The proof is in the pudding in regard to both the 14' and the 17' I have heard tell of the 17' reaching very near 8 MPH http://kfs.infopop.cc/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif, sprinting with a competent paddler no doubt, and will tell you first hand that if the water is flattish I can cruise at 4.5 - 4.7 mph comfortably in the SD 14 I have trouble breaking 6 MPH paddeling my brains out however, which I think is a very good testemant to the boats efficiency.

Neither the 14' or the 17' is perfect, tradeoffs like any other boat abound.. all the negatives regarding hatch size, turning etc.. are true..

I digress here, but If any one tells me that the boat is hard to re-enter I will just snicker... hard to re-enter, unless you have done it in real life.. its a breeze.

This is my brother (taken just yesterday) taking my 14' for a spin.. note the sponsons (yes it is rather calm) out of the water.. he comes in at about 175 lbs.

[RiverRaider]

This is an older photo (pre-duck hunt camo) that I took while I was paddeling.. I am only 150 lbs.. no doubt you start to lose some benefit of the design if your a bigger guy)

Matt (JEM) made an interesting point regarding this design, noting that its likely more the overall flair of the hull, rather than just the sponsons design alone, that gibe it a nice blend of speed and stability

[RiverRaider]

Pure money shot

[RiverRaider]

Seperated at birth? They clipped off your sponsons Jimbo'! http://www.kayakfishingstuff.com/images/maps/scratch_chin.gif http://kfs.infopop.cc/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[Socrates_thinks]

Sure the sponsons clear, but only in near dead calm water and apparently with only light paddlers:
.
http://ftlauderdaleyakfishingclub.org/images/seadartdeadcalm.jpg
.
Heritage claims a 22 inch beam waterline, but that must be with an awful light paddler. This guy is in pretty good shape and already the water is creepin way up and out onto those 26 inch sponsons. Another inch or two and the deck will start to go awash.

And don't forget that most of tend to rock n roll a bit from side-to-side when paddling, so you can be sure those sponsons are going for a pretty regular swim.

Here's another sponson design, the infamous Little Wing (they call their sponsons wings) in more typical conditions.
.
http://ftlauderdaleyakfishingclub.org/littlewing/LW18TheRock.jpg
.
What's that? You can't tell where the sponsons/wings are? Of course you can't, they're obliterated by what amounts to a typical chop (btw there are two sets of sponsons, just ahead and behind of the cockpit. You can see just a smidgen of the front set).

Let me say it again "Anyone who believes the sponsons don't engage under normal paddling/conditions is in for a rude awakening.".

Now it is true that sponsons DO add stability - but - they also add drag and turbulence. The concept that you can have your cake (speed) and eat it too (very high stability)is too good to be true - yet another marketing myth.

[RiverRaider]

Why listen to marketing hype and nonsense when you can paddle the boat and see it all for yourself? Like I said, heavier paddlers dont reap all the benefit.. and even when the sponsons are "engaged" in rough water, they are only adding to the stability, the SD 14 for example is 28" wide AT THE SPONSONS, far less in the water the VAST majority of the time, so worst case scenerio: my boat is 28" wide in rough conditions..

Done with this conversation Capt. see it with your eyes, hear from those who paddle the boat, employ a little intellectual honesty.. if you still dont wanna except that its a fair compromise between speed and stability.. cant help ya'

You forget to tell me how difficult it is to reboard with those high sides http://kfs.infopop.cc/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

PS.

Of course they are going to engage under most conditions who said they wouldnt?

[Socrates_thinks]

Sadly, the 17 has been discontinued and Heritage's extravagant marketing claims removed from their site.

But Little Wing continues to make them. "Little Wing's design goal was to provide the performance of a racing kayak with the stability of a touring boat. This goal is accomplished by adding wings...the wings stay out of the water when not edging, giving Little Wing a narrow waterline width."

I could quote you chapter and verse bout the wings/sponsons engaging, and most of the time. It's the design and just can't be helped. Are these designs faster than the typical barge, say a Malibu Extreme? Sure. Are they as fast as a narrow kayak without sponsons, say the Skua. Heavens no.

Yet the marketing that was done - and continues to be insofar as the Little Wing - implies that yes indeedie, you can have both - the stability of the Extreme with the speed of a Skua.

Now if you really want the best of both worlds you're simply gonna have to consider the concept of a narrow fast kayak with built-in, integral and deployable stabilizers.

And/or learn how to kayak without your waterwings.

[RiverRaider]

Its the marketing that has you in such a tizzy Capt' It should amuse you rather than annoy you IMHO..

Surely you know enough about boat design not to fall for the Madison Ave. crowds siren song... Let Madison Ave. sing about the Little Wing all they want, but hold your judgement until you have put ass-in-saddle. ( you have put ass-in-saddle in at least one of these boats have you not?)

As far as the Sea Dart's go, again, they offer less wetted surface area than other boats boasting the same measurements, and this translates into greater effeciency (speed if you must) better yet, or more accurate to say, they offer less POTENTIAL wetted area under most conditions, yes the whole of the width will be wetted in chop, thats the point.. its supposed to do that you see. Cobra employs a similar design with the Tourer model, they dont hype it as such however.

As far as your little "waterwings" comment.. please save all your bait for fishing Capt' its more effect in that context.

[Socrates_thinks]

River, you're a good guy and I can assure you my waterwings comments were aimed at those who both promote and accept the hype. Hey, as far as I'm concerned don't need any bait - already caught the fish - I'm just filleting it, lol...

One of the primary reasons I established the website and forum was to bust myths. I won't soon forget the hours I spent as a newbie trying to wade through competing marketing claims and hype, and some of the myths that dominate the net.

It was and is my objective to expose myths and marketing hype, to educate especially newbies so they have sufficient knowledge of design and performance to make up their own minds.

The Little Wing and Sea Dart claims are especially misunderstood, and rarely challenged. Most of us, unable to effectively evaluate them and deferring to their authoritativeness, end up drinking the koolaid.

Your comments are worth examining:

"As far as the Sea Dart's go, again, they offer less wetted surface area than other boats boasting the same measurements, and this translates into greater effeciency (speed if you must)"

I have never found the wetted surface specified for any Sea Dart, by Heritage or any other resource. Thus any claim that they offer "less wetted surface" is simply that - an unsubstantiated claim.

Now I won't go into it here, but Little Wing (using the same design concept) DOES publish the wetted surface of their LW16 and LW18 and they are not impressive compared to wingless kayaks with similar dimensions. Why? Because - despite their (and Heritage's) claims to the contrary - the wings/sponsons DO engage and increase the wetted surface.

Next...

"...they offer less POTENTIAL wetted area under most conditions, yes the whole of the width will be wetted in chop, thats the point.. its supposed to do that you see."

Oops. Drank the Koolaid.

Less "potential" area - this is exactly what their hype promotes and has already been refuted. Indeed your own observation - that "the whole of the width will be wetted in chop" - is my point exactly. And when your wings/sponsons are ALREADY engaged, even very minor deviations in the water's surface will signficantly increase wetted surface/drag.

This is most of the time. Can't be helped. Now the only way the waterwing concept would not affect wetted surface and speed would be if they were mounted so high as to be entirely out of the water - really too high to be effective for purposes of stability. The designers had a real challenge here: a compromise between very low and fully engaged at all times - and - high, completely disengaged and accordingly ineffective.

Their apparent solution: partial engagement (borne out by unimpressive published wetted surface numbers), that leads to even more wetted surface with even minor wavelets and chop.

The common misunderstandings seem to be twofold. First, that the sponsons are not engaged in most conditions (they are) and second, that when they do engage they somehow provide stability without increasing wetted surface and drag (impossible). These designs have less than impressive wetted surface and sacrifice speed for stability.

In my opinion this was and is a failed concept that was pursued for marketing objectives.

[RiverRaider]

I have never found the wetted surface specified for any Sea Dart, by Heritage or any other resource. Thus any claim that they offer "less wetted surface" is simply that - an unsubstantiated claim

It stands to reason, that a conventional hulled boat at 14' x 28" is going to offer more wetted surface than a 14' x 28" boat with a design such as the Sea Dart, where a much larger portion of that 28" measurment is designed unwetted (as far as I know Sea Kayak Magazine measures wetted surface in tranquil water)

(I mention Sea Kayak Magazine because they have such an established and respected system of performance measurment)

As I stated earlier, the proof is in the pudding, If I were tasked to paddle 10 miles in a boat with a pre-determined set of measurements, REGARDLESS of the conditions, I would chose a design such as the Sea Dart or the Little Wing over a conventinal hull of the same measured dimension any day of the week.. I would no doubt get to my destination sooner, and upon arrival enjoy the same measure of stability as the "other" boat with the same dimensions

(It does take some getting used to that listing however, once you get there)

We can banter and bicker about the marketing aspect of it (though I agree with you) but in real terms the boats designs are proven to be effective

[Socrates_thinks]

It stands to reason, that a conventional hulled boat at 14' x 28" is going to offer more wetted surface than a 14' x 28" boat with a design such as the Sea Dart, where a much larger portion of that 28" measurment is designed unwetted (as far as I know Sea Kayak Magazine measures wetted surface in tranquil water)


River, I wish it were that simple. Sea Kayaker is an excellent resource, but unfortunately there are no numbers for the Sea Dart 14/17. Now - let's examine why it doesn't stand to reason:

First, because comparing gross length and beam (14' x 28", with just a nod regarding design differences) does not take into full or specific account of the wide variations in hull shape and volume distribution. Nor does it take into account designed displacement or compare similar loads.

Simplistic and unconvincing.

However, I CAN give you one very convincing and accurate comparison with the Little Wing that uses the same design concept as the Sea Dart 17 especially.

The LW 16 claims a beam waterline of just 17.8 inches (with wings/sponsons extending to just short of 24 inches)!! Further, they claim that the "wings" are out of the water except when edging.

Stands to reason the LW 16 would have a very low wetted surface, certainly lower than a longer and wider conventional design like say, the Skua at 17 ft x 22.5" (estimated beam waterline of 21 inches, almost 3 inches wider than the LW)!

Guess again.

The wetted surface of the LW 16 is an unimpressive 23.4 sq ft - and is GREATER than the longer, wider Skua's 21.2 sq ft. How can that possibly be?

Simple. Despite claims to the contrary, the wings/sponsons DO engage, even at rest in calm water. Add real life paddling conditions and the Skua's advantage (lower wetted surface) will only improve.

River, you're right - it stands to reason (marketing hype) - except of course when it doesn't, lol. Which is what they told the Wright Brothers...

[bnz]

It was and is my objective to expose myths and marketing hype, to educate especially newbies so they have sufficient knowledge of design and performance to make up their own minds.

I think the easiest way to accomplish this is to get newbies to put their derrieres into a yak and find out for themselves rather than having someone tell them what it's supposed to be. That's how I chose my first (err, first fishing kayak for me) one and am glad to this day with the decision I made then (even now after paddling numerous others).

Only thing I did to choose which ones I was going to try was read reviews of the kayaks from people who actually paddled them.

[Santiago II]

The practical side to this is the "tipping point" that makes some kayaks fishable and others less so. The Sea Dart 17 still remains, in my experience, one of the fastest fishable kayaks on the market. Whatever the combination of effects that create this sitution, you have enough initial and secondary stability to use this kayak to manuever and catch fish. The Dorado isn't significantly faster and the Skua is great but you need a bit of kayaking prowess to survive a big fish upright.

Something about this design works.

[RiverRaider]

Jimbo’,

Regarding your fiqures on the LW 16 ( Huh…???) I don’t like numbers and debating about numbers makes my head hurt… But:

Warren Light Craft’s website gives these specs


LW 16

Technical Statistics

Beam 23.7"
Beam at Paddler 20"
Total Volume 16.3 cu. ft.
Volume of Front Storage 36.7 gal (139 L)
Volume of Aft Storage 41.0 gal (155 L)
Cockpit Size 15 7/16" x 29 3/4"
Coaming Height - Fore 12"
Coaming Height - Aft 10"
Height of Seat 1"
Center of Bouyancy 52%



Hydrostatics

Paddler Weight 150 lbs.
Cargo Weight None
Waterline Length 15' 9"
Waterline Beam 17.8"
Draft 3.25"
Prismatic Coefficient 0.643
Block Coefficient 0.457
Wetted Surface in sq. ft. 20.907
Lbs./Inch Immersion 93

LW 18
Technical Statistics

Beam 22"
Beam at Paddler 20"
Total Volume 16.9 cu. ft.
Volume of Front Storage 38.0 gal (144 L)
Volume of Aft Storage 42.5 gal (160 L)
Cockpit Size 15 7/16" x 30 3/4"
Coaming Height - Fore 12"
Coaming Height - Aft 9.0"
Height of Seat 1"
Center of Bouyancy 52%

Hydrostatics

Paddler Weight 150 lbs.
Cargo Weight None
Waterline Length 17' 6"
Waterline Beam 17.3"
Draft 3.14"
Prismatic Coefficient 0.639
Block Coefficient 0.451
Wetted Surface in sq. ft. 22.5
Lbs./Inch Immersion 98.2

These are the Skua stats form Kazkazi’s site:


Specifications
Displacement 105 kg 165 kg
Length - Waterline 4.95 m 5.02 m (16’1”) (17’ 3” )
Width - Waterline 0.54

Length to width ratio 9.19 9.28
Centre of buoyancy 2.69 m aft 0 2.73 m aft 0
Centre of action 2.62 m aft 0 2.68 m aft 0
Draft 0.10 m 0.13 m
Wetted Hull surface 1.90 m2 2.24 m2 ( 20.4 sq ft.) (24.1 Sq. ft.)
Prismatic Coefficient 0.556 0.576
Block Coefficient 0.381 0.441

That’s just for the “record” as I have about as much interest in debating Skua vs. LW16 as I do lighting my shorts afire.

Regarding the Straw man being down for the count:

“Simple. Despite claims to the contrary, the wings/sponsons DO engage”


Obviously, yes, I agree

[RiverRaider]

( The Skua specs give 2 sets of numbers for each measure, I will use the lower number of each)

Assuming these numbers are accurate what do you conclude?

I conclude that for a modest price in increased wet sq. feet (5 sq. inches if my lousy math is correct) , and waterline length (4”) you get the stability of a 24” boat Vs. the stability of a much narrower boat: The Skua for this example)

Ya’ see it’s a trick… like virtual width, width will all that nasty surface area to drag you down

The “wasp shape” give you these bennies, plus throws in a healthy heaping of buoyancy in your bow to deal with bigger water ( when the wings are fully engaged, and that’s NOT per se a bad thing when that happens), To equal this buoyancy with another more conventional design, but not increase surface area much, you would likely have a skinny boat (think surfski, think “tippy”)


The SEA DART I believe is similar in concept but very different in regard to the application of the concept… In fact, the more I think on it, the less I think the concepts have in common in pratical terms, they are very different designs and merit separate discussion I think.

[Socrates_thinks]

River, if nothing else your cut-n-paste bonanza demonstrates how misleading the uninterpreted listing of specs can be. My earlier findings and interpretations were based on these. In truth, most kayakers don't have a clue as to what these mean, or how to interpret them.

And you sure can't depend on the marketing claims and interpretations. Just two brief examples of some hidden qualifiers abused by the advertising hype.

First: please note that Little Wing bases all their calculations on a 150 lb paddler and no cargo - unrealistic and self-serving. At least Kaskazi is forthright enough to list performance specs for both 231 and 363 lbs - realistic figures.

For the uninitiated the only reason Little Wing used 150 lb to calculate is that with a light load, much less of the kayak is in the water, and it specs out better. They call it marketing, I call it lying.

And second, how bout Heritage - a bit more subtle but not much:

"The Sea Dart 17 is our longest and fastest single kayak,well capable of maintaining a high average cruising speed over long distances! A seaworthy, stable kayak with 26" at the buoyancy sponsons and a much narrower average waterline width of 22".

They leave it to the unwashed to assume that it's like having a 22 inch fast kayak, with nice 26 inch sponsons that come into play for stability. Really, the same claim as Little Wing. And demonstably false.

More marketing, more lies.

In the same way the Little Wing abuses the numbers by using an unrealisticly light load of 150 lb., Heritage simply makes up a number "a much narrower AVERAGE WATERLINE WIDTH of 22 inches" (emphasis added).

"Average waterline width"? No such thing. This term is a Heritage invention and means - absolutely nothing. What they hope you'll confuse it with is beam waterline (BWL - a standard design measure). And there's a very good reason.

Because the Heritage sponsons do engage the water the beam waterline is much closer to 26 inches than they want to admit - 22 inches sounds a lot better and faster. Problem is, there is no such thing as "average waterline width". Don't believe me? Google it, then google "beam waterline"...

They call making up this term marketing. I call it lying.

Now I do agree with you Mr. Wandering River that both LW and Dart carry out the same design concept in different ways. LW uses two sets of sponsons they call "wings" (great marketing really). Heritage places the sponsons midship and has the decency to call their waterwings, uh, "sponsons".

And you are very right that these two applications will indeed perform differently as the "wings"/sponsons interact with waves.

But isn't this much ado about very little? So what if these two misrepresent their designs? So what if it turns out you can't have "the speed of a racing kayak with the stability of a touring boat". So what if the Sea Dart was discontinued, and the LW is so expensive that it might as well be? So what if they make different applications of the same concept?

Yes, so what? Truth is that this design concept has never really taken off, or been adopted by kayak manufacturers at large. Truth is a well-designed conventional design can provide an near equal amount of secondary stability without the abruptness and drag of these sponsons. Truth is any kayaker who puts his/her mind to it can achieve reasonable skills enough not to need waterwings.

The bottom line is that there will always be new and unusual designs, and that some of these will be, ahem, oversold (there, is that better?). And if they have merit, these designs will prosper. If not they won't, and sales will be limited to the cultic few who drank the Koolaid...

[RiverRaider]

I still dont understand where you came up with your numbers?

Cut and paste "bonanza" undertaken for accuracy of claims.

Both the SD and the LW favor a lighter paddler, as I stated, I wish I could paddle the Skua, cuz' its a beutiful boat, but I fear for me (154 lbs.) I would trade the great speed for usable stability.. I guess the LW16 might be a better choice, as I can get (even loaded up an extra 70 or 80 lbs) around the same wetted surface area and efficiency as a Skua, but with fishable stability thanks to the increased beam

As far as the deceptive marketing rant is concerned, yes, again, we are in agreement, and yes, again the little wings sponsons appear to be engaged nearly all the time, I agree (not so of the SD 14 and 17) the benefit of the design is in the wasp shape, I blame the marketing dept for the "wings" thing.

Have you seen the Stability Curves for the LW's the 3 bears would be happy, not too hot not too cold, just an aside there.

None of this discussion on my part is intended to disparage the Skua's design by the way, a fine boat I am convinced.

Random points (i'm tired)

The LW 18 finished 2nd. in its class in the 2006 Blackburn Challenge, 20 seconds out of 1st. Its not a slow boat, and the graph indicates its stable (relatively) proof in the pudding.

The SD 14 is a 28" boat that paddles like a narrower boat, but provides some decent primary and secondary stability... is there a more efficient 28" boat? if there is point me to it, I think the Dart Could turn a bit easier, and I must admit I miss my rear tank well.On what do I base my claim? I paddled it again this evening after work.

Now, lest we lose perspective, I dont claim to be a LW groupie, not a boat I could afford (though price has nothing to do with this topic)

I am a bit of a Heritage groupie, and I would buy a brand new SD in a heart beat if they didnt DC it, not that that has anything to do with this topic either.


so.....

We agree on the marketing nonsense, what are we disagreeing on? the efficiency of the Sea Dart's design and its inherent stability the LW's efficiency and stability? I mean neither is a slow boat capt. ( in relative terms ) not the LW 16 nor the LW 18, cetainly not the SD 14 or SD 17 and I can tell you first hand that the SD 14 is plenty stable to fish... others accounts of the LW's would indicate they are stable as well, more so than boats with similar speed.. could a slow boat place so well in the Blackburn, even "in its class"

so what is the debate?

[Socrates_thinks]

Thanks for your post, let's go...

I guess the LW16 might be a better choice, as I can get (even loaded up an extra 70 or 80 lbs) around the same wetted surface area and efficiency as a Skua, but with fishable stability

The "same wetted surface"? Are you kidding? Better reread the numbers. At your weight (154) plus "an extra 70 or 80 lbs" you'd come in at 224 to 234 lb total load. Good so far.

LW16 wetted surface with 231 lb load: 23.4 sq ft
Skua wetted surface with 231 lb load: 21.2 sq ft

Skua wins handily with 10% LESS wetted surface, even though it's longer, wider, faster and can carry LOTS more cargo. Be honest.

The LW 18 finished 2nd. in its class in the 2006 Blackburn Challenge, 20 seconds out of 1st. Its not a slow boat, and the graph indicates its stable (relatively) proof in the pudding.

Holy Batman, Robin. Have you considered applying for a job with Little Wing's marketing department? Grab yer wallets, folks, here's the facts:

1. The Blackburn is normally a very, very tough 22 mile offshore race in often dangerous conditions. However, due to fog, the 2006 was shortend to 6.5 miles in relatively calm water.

2. The Blackburn works very hard to place entrants into appropriate classes, to wit:

* Racing Kayaks: Less than 20" beam, wing paddles allowed. For those paddlers who concentrate on racing and have the equipment to go with it. Previous top finishers of the Fast Touring Kayak class are encouraged to enter this class.

* Fast Touring Kayaks: 20" beam or greater, wing paddles allowed. For fit paddlers who don't specialize in racing but have faster than average kayaks.

Kayaks (Recreational):

* Touring Kayaks A: 20" beam or greater, 17' or longer, no wing paddles. For first time racers in typical sea kayaks, and experienced paddlers who are less serious about racing.

Guess what class the self-touted Little Wing was in? Yup, with "typical sea kayaks". Far from the racing kayaks Little Wing promotes for the LW18.

3. Yup, the LW18 finished 2nd - in its slow class, that is. Considering ALL the above classes, the LW18 came in 27th, and in the bottom seven of the 35 kayaks in the fast touring and racing kayak class.

Keep in mind Little Wing's ridiculous claim "Little Wing's design goal was to provide the performance of a racing kayak with the stability of a touring boat". Good grief!! This Riverbed is runnin dry.

The SD 14 is a 28" boat that paddles like a narrower boat, but provides some decent primary and secondary stability... is there a more efficient 28" boat?

Garsh, you don't have to look very far here. Just scroll up and take another look at the RTM Baia Sport at 13'8" x 25" x 46 lb!, the RTM Disco at 14' x 26" x 50 lb, maybe even the RTM Tempo at 14'9" x 26" x 54 lb. The Tempo/Scupper is no slouch, fast, turns well, is super seaworthy and has incredible secondary - and a much more fishable design to boot.

But fair is fair, so I should share the results of a conventional kayak design I pumped out to match the LW16. I used Freeship to design a 16 foot kayak with approximately the same overall length and beam, waterline length, draft and displacement - this design was fairly conventional and wingless. I then ran the numbers on it - it's wetted surface...

Just 19.3 sq ft! A huge advantage.

I then input as many of Little Wing's numbers as possible into KAPER to determine drag and found that at 4.5 knot the Little Wing's numbers created about 4.5 lb of drag, compared to my conventional test design at just 3.5 lb. This is a BIG difference in the world of drag.

It is fair to assume the sponsoned SD14 would suffer accordingly. Indeed the reputation of the Sea Dart is one of a somewhat heavy (64 lb!), seaworthy, slower and harder to turn design. Even a cursory look at the hull and you'll appreciate that its sponsons are long, large and fully engage the water - Heritage does NOT pretend otherwise, as they do with the Dart 17. I'd hate to think how much wetted surface this design creates.

Bottom line: let's get real. Neither of the Sea Darts or the Little Wing will be particularly fast compared to good conventional designs. OTOH, these waterwing designs will add some stability, albeit at the cost of speed.

But let's cut the hype - Little Wing's, Heritage's - and yours, shall we?

[RiverRaider]

same wetted surface"?[/quote]
around the same wetted surface


No..

"..around the same wetted surface..."

[RiverRaider]

Garsh, you don't have to look very far here. Just scroll up and take another look at the RTM Baia Sport at 13'8" x 25" x 46 lb!, the RTM Disco at 14' x 26" x 50 lb, maybe even the RTM Tempo at 14'9" x 26" x 54 lb. The Tempo/Scupper is no slouch, fast, turns well, is super seaworthy and has incredible secondary - and a much more fishable design to boot.


Which of those was the 28" boat I wanted to compare?

[RiverRaider]

But fair is fair, so I should share the results of a conventional kayak design I pumped out to match the LW16. I used Freeship to design a 16 foot kayak with approximately the same overall length and beam, waterline length, draft and displacement - this design was fairly conventional and wingless. I then ran the numbers on it - it's wetted surface...



And stability?

[RiverRaider]

The Tempo/Scupper is no slouch, fast, turns well, is super seaworthy and has incredible secondary - and a much more fishable design to boot.

The Tempo/Scupper is no slouch, fast, turns well, is super seaworthy and has incredible secondary - and a much more fishable design to boot.


Your expanding the discussion obviously.. no doubt the SPTW \ Tempo is a fine boat, as I said, on my "list" is fact one of the two is likely my next boat.. AND for the very reason you note here... however:

Does it track as well as the Sea Dart? no, they are different boats and make different performance tradeoffs, one tracks well, one turns well.. choose your poison and preference.. I dont get the point?

[RiverRaider]

Again; from what source did you take the specs on the LW's?

[RiverRaider]

"...Yup, the LW18 finished 2nd - in its slow class, that is. Considering ALL the above classes, the LW18 came in 27th, and in the bottom seven of the 35 kayaks in the fast touring and racing kayak class."

Yikes! talk about Marketing prowess.. your making quite a case here Capt'... (I'm trying not to be a smartass here, or confrontational) but....

Lets save any poor soul actualy bored enough to read this deeply into this convoluted thread the trouble of researching this information for themselves.

The LW18 was classed as it should be, not only inregard to its spec's but also in regard to its intended use (Touring)

To read your take on this, one would likely think that the LW 18 was pitted against a gaggle of... "Tubs".. and "Barges"

It was actualy classed with boats like the Seda Glider (which edged the LW by 20 seconds for 1st place) and the Epic 18, as well as the Surge and The Nigel Dennis Explorer.

In reality, the class difference appeared to be more about the paddler than the boat, as there are numerous "cross entries" of boats between the 2 classes ( the Seda Glider was rather popular in both classes)

These are the "slow" boats the LW 18 classed itself against and finished 2nd.

what does this prove... only that the design is clearly not a hinderance to speed, as you would like to suggest.. I am curious to how you could refute this?

What it doesnt prove, is wether or not the LW 18 has an advantage over these other boats in regard to stability (what ever that means) I have a feeling if we looked at some graphs we would get a clear answer.

Now, as far as the duration of the race (6 as opposed to 22 miles) what would you argue? that the LW was bound to get slower over the course of that additional mileage?

As to sea conditions, would the LW 18 have been slower in choppy waters? I will let you go in whatever direction you please with that question.. as surely the pitfalls of any answer are obvious to you.

Ok long winded as that was..

I dont care to one up you Capt' I'm not all that invested in the notion of being "right" or "righter" than you

The LW 18 and LW 16 are interesting designs... I have never paddled them, never even laid eyes on them.. so what do I know?

I do know that given the fact that I have no practical experience in either boat.. I actualy think the dabate is moot.

The SD 14 and SD 17 on the other hand....

[lconn4]

I would say for most observers like myself, not knowing enough to comment, you both make some great points and deserve a group hug! http://www.kayakfishingstuff.com/images/maps/the_wave.gif http://www.kayakfishingstuff.com/images/maps/thumbsup.gif

On the other hand, I heard according to computer modeling, the bumble bee can't fly? http://www.kayakfishingstuff.com/images/maps/rofl.gif

[RiverRaider]

Mehhh... boat talk passes the time.. man's got to have a hobby, and since I (mostly) gave up my other two (booze.. Women..) I enjoy the banter (most times)

I just wanted to make some observations re: the LW's have no seat time in either the LW 16 or the LW 18.. who knows what the design benefits might be or not be?

[Socrates_thinks]

Banter, schmanter.

C'mon, be honest. You either like to argue or you really do work for the marketing department of (pick one).

But first, let's bring it all home. This thread actually began with the Wandering River admiring the WS Freedom, and this writer defending his choice, but in doing so referring in passing to the Sea Dart 17 as an overrated and misrepresented design, wherein Heritage promotes a narrow waterline (for speed) along with wide sponsons (for stability), falsely claiming that the sponsons are free of the water most of the time. One of those too-good-to-be-true, best of both worlds puffery. I pointed out that "Anyone who believes the sponsons don't engage under normal paddling/conditions is in for a rude awakening."

Big Mistake.

The River - in the advanced stages of BBS (buyer bias syndrome}, and clearly having quaffed a pitcher at the least of the deadly Kool Aid - tossed out his own line of BS stating "...I have heard tell of the 17' reaching very near 8 MPH Eek, sprinting with a competent paddler no doubt, and will tell you first hand that if the water is flattish I can cruise at 4.5 - 4.7 mph comfortably in the SD 14."

He then posted a series of hard to see pictures (that actually show the sponsons engaging), and (parroting Heritage) "(my) SD 14 for example is 28" wide AT THE SPONSONS, far less in the water the VAST majority of the time". In other words, claiming my observations were false because he said so.

Hmmm.

I responded in my usual fashion, making well reasoned observations based on copious facts, figures, accepted design principles, illustrations and pictures which, in my book anyway, is superior to "because I say so" arguments. Still the River wandered on and held to his guns "...As far as the Sea Dart's go, again, they offer less wetted surface area than other boats boasting the same measurements". And added: "It stands to reason, that a conventional hulled boat at 14' x 28" is going to offer more wetted surface than a 14' x 28" boat with a design such as the Sea Dart, where a much larger portion of that 28" measurment is designed unwetted...:"

Why? Well - because he said so. The debate then turned to the Little Wing, based on the same design concept ("narrow hull...wide sponsons that only engage during turns".)

I went to great lengths to provide actual wetted surface data from the manufacturers themselves, even going so far as to create a conventional design with the same key dimensions (length, beam, displacement and draft) that completely refuted the River's personal opinion. And illustrated with pictures from both Heritage and Little Wing that confirmed that, yes, why yes of course, those big, bad, wide waterwings did indeed engage the water in even mild conditions. Meaning most of the time. And provided actual drag figures to make my point.

Believe me, by now I felt like I was arguing with a Hare Krishna - they just keep on chanting, chanting - repeating the company line - ANYTHING to drown out fact, figures and logic. Actually pretty effective, for the clan anyway. Only better thing I know of was my brother's way of ending an argument - he'd simply rip off a tremendous fart. Not convincing of course...

But very effective. But I digress.

Finally it appeared that real fact and figures, plus not just a little determination had worked. Perhaps the Wet Wanderer had finally been stultified, had finally seen the light. But no! Having seen the foolishness of simply repeating "it isn't so, it CAN'T be so, cause, cause, well, it just isn't", the Wanderer turned toward his Godz - the God with the Little Wings, and the Great Sage of Heritage - more specifically their marketing departments.

This was better he thought, and he started by madly cutting and pasting, and listing every specification he could find on the kayaks in question. No explanation, no comparison, no elucicidation. No, just a big, plain honker of a list. From the Godz themselves. Hey, if it was big - long - detailed - complicated - typed accurately, but especially BIG, well, dang that'll show em. It's bigness alone oughta look like, well, something. Authoritative like.

Sure.

He then attempted to follow up with his own, only very slightly reasoned observation "..I conclude that for a modest price in increased wet sq. feet (5 sq. inches if my lousy math is correct) , and waterline length (4”) you get the stability of a 24” boat Vs. the stability of a much narrower boat: The Skua...).

Great! Except that his math was wrong. He couldn't even interpret figures from his own big, big list. Hey, he couldn't even accurately repeat figures from that bad old list. But you know, numbers are confusing, and darn, there were SO many of em. He didn't even comprehend that the Little Wing numbers were based on just a 150 lb load, and that therefore any comparison to the Skua at 231/336 lb. meant absolutely nothing.

I then pointed out the huge difference that a heavier, more realistic load would make, provided detailed comparisons at the same load, showed the Skua's great advantage in speed and wetted surface. I then examined both Little Wing's and Heritage's claims in excruciating detail and showed their common claim - that you can have a very narrow hull (for speed) with out-of-the-water wings/sponsons (for stability when needed) - was patently false. This was demonstrated with actual comparisons of wetted surface and drag, and even illustrated with reliable pictures.

Not enough for the Wanderer. His very world view, his belief system, his hard won, hard earned purchase and paddling decision - his very being - were now challenged. What to do? Time to pull out the stops. Time to emulate Karl Rove. That's right...

Get dirty.

With lightning speed, and a big steaming mug of Kook, er, Kool Aid at his side, he ripped through the e-world to google, gawgle, gargle and search. Finally, he found something he could snip and parse. Use a third party, yeah, that'll be TERRIFIC! What'd he find: "The LW 18 finished 2nd. in its class in the 2006 Blackburn Challenge, 20 seconds out of 1st. Its not a slow boat, and the graph indicates its stable (relatively) proof in the pudding."

Man, awesome. Big time race, 2nd place, just 20 seconds back. Real, real fast and of course it's stable. See, the Godz and me are right, we're right, we're right, WE'RE RIGHT! Hah! Right?

Wrong. Way wrong.

Turns out the Little Wing was entered in the commuter class, the slowest class, the race for fun class of touring kayaks. Now never you mind that the Little Wing pitch is "Little Wing's design goal was to provide the performance of a racing kayak with the stability of a touring boat". No when it came time to race, did they compete against racing kayaks? Nope. Well, how bout runnin against "fast touring kayaks". No again. They raced against "touring kayaks". What are these?

Just what you think. Relatively high volume, shorter, fatter kayaks with shorter waterlengths, plenty of rocker and big swoopy Greenland overhangs. Not the kinda kayaks you consider fast. The kind that can carry a hundred pounds of gear, go camping. Seaworthy, but really...

Kinda slow. And wowee, the Little Wing came in second. Yup the kayak designed to provide "the performance of a racing kayak" beat a bunch of stable, slower touring boats. I pointed out the sad truth: "the LW18 came in 27th, and in the bottom seven of the 35 kayaks in the fast touring and racing kayak class". Yup, among kayaks designed to be fast, the racing and fast touring kayaks, the Little Wing sucked close to hind teat.

But the Wanderer is insufferable. He snips out isolated facts designed to maintain the remaining shreds of his being. He'd make Karl proud, for sure. And now here we are, in the present and in the last throes of a once great Wandering River nearing Mexico as little more than a rivulet of muddy waters...he continues:

To read your take on this, one would likely think that the LW 18 was pitted against a gaggle of... "Tubs".. and "Barges"

Actually that's a pretty fair description. Let me share how most serious races fall out, particularly one as challenging as the famous Blackburn. First there is the "racing kayak" class. This class is for past champions, very serious challengers and often professionals with top equipment. In this class there were just 5 competitors, driving ultralight (say 35 lb) carbon, all-out racing machines. The racing kayaks average 21' x 18", with beam waterlines of about 17 inches. BTW this is the waterline the Little Wing claims!!! These no-nonsense racing kayaks are not much more than racing surfskis with sit-in cockpits. They boast built-in, full time foil rudders and are very hard to paddle. The Little Wing, despite their claim "...to provide the performance of a racing class", simply does NOT belong in this elite class.

Next we have the "fast touring class". This class was for very fit paddlers driving "faster than average" kayaks. Almost all the kayaks in this class averaged 18' x 21". They tend to have little rocker and long waterlines (around 17'), are soft chined, and with rounded hulls are intended for fast touring. Their beam waterline is around 19 or 20 inches. The Little Wing at 18', and a claimed 17.8" waterline is a perfect fit in this class. How'd it do? Not very well, 22nd out of 27.

Now in any race there is a big recreational class and the Blackburn is no exception. This is the "recreational touring class" and it is primarily composed of ordinary (slower) touring kayaks, perhaps a few fast tourers driven by non-racing touring paddlers. These average 16 to 17 ft. long, 22 to 24 inch beams, relatively fat beam waterlines of 21 to 23 inches. Many are Greenland style, with big overhangs and short waterline lengths closer to 15, maybe 15.5 ft. It is a fun class, and a good place to gain experience. This constitutes "the pack" with average paddlers flailing away and having a good time. At the Blackburn there were 38 kayaks in this class. Note that the Little Wing, despite it's "racing dimensions", was entered into this class. Case closed.

Enough said, or so I thought. But it's like killin a cockroach with a plastic flyswatter, it just keeps wrigglin. Like Freddy the 13th. Just when you thought it was safe, another desperate try by the Wandering Rivulet:

It was actually classed with boats like the Seda Glider (which edged the LW by 20 seconds for 1st place) and the Epic 18, as well as the Surge and The Nigel Dennis Explorer.

In reality, the class difference appeared to be more about the paddler than the boat, as there are numerous "cross entries" of boats between the 2 classes...These are the "slow" boats the LW 18 classed itself against and finished 2nd.

It was actually classed with boats like the Seda Glider and Epic 18? Now that is just a plain lie, pure and simple. Or to be fair, a gross misrepresentation. The Little Wing was "classed" with nothing. It's just the opposite. In this race, the owner/racer chooses which class and/or course (if there are more than one) he/she wishes to race in.

You'll always find a few "fast touring kayak" class boats who choose to race in the recreational division, usually driven by newer owners who aren't much into racing. What do I mean by a few? Out of 38 kayaks in the recreational touring class only 5 were really "fast touring". And his assertion that there are numerous "cross entries" just ain't so. Of the 27 kayaks in the "fast touring class" how many were ordinary touring designs? Survey sez:

None. Not one. No cross entries. Nada mama.

Yet Little Wing chose to race with the recreational touring tubs rather than with the fast touring class where it claims to and really does belong. Why? Answer seems pretty obvious to me. Either this was a new driver out to just have fun, or a company entry designed to look good.

Even Blackburn recognizes this ploy:

Note: These rules are intentionally left a little loose to help people match their abilities to the competition. Paddlers are encouraged to register in the most competitive class for their ability and to progress as their abilities improve. Please do not take advantage of these rules to gain an easy win.

The bottom line is simple: no matter how ya cut it, if you compare the Little Wing's times to the "fast touring class", it just wasn't pretty. It's second place finish in the recreational class means exactly nothing. Sorry, that's the way it is. Yet the hype goes on...

Heritage.

Little Wing.

And Kool Aid saturated, BBS exhibiting, BS flinging,
revisionist, reprobative, retrograde and unrepetent Rivulets.

...in the distance the clanging of bells, the flashing of the sun on wind blown orange robes, the glint of gold-capped incisors, the heavy scent of overripe limburger cheese..."Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Haretage, Haretage...

[lconn4]

my point exactly! http://www.kayakfishingstuff.com/images/maps/rofl.gif

lots of skinny yaks that aint worth a damn for speed, comfort, durability, or fishing....the magic compromise! http://www.kayakfishingstuff.com/images/maps/thumbsup.gif http://www.kayakfishingstuff.com/images/maps/rofl.gif

[RiverRaider]

Hmmm... I lost count of the number of digs, jabs, insults etc... in that essay..

"It was actually classed with boats like the Seda Glider and Epic 18? Now that is just a plain lie, pure and simple. "

I did find that one particularly uncalled for... whatever.. no harm done.

The boat was indeed "classed" with those mentioned.. either by choice or rule (choice i would imagine) And it did indeed hold its own.. finishing better than some not as well as others. Better than some in the class "above" and better than all but one in the class it entered (lots of cross entrys as noted)

Again I to restrain myself from being confronttional or sarcastic...

It would seem that the point you now labor to make is that the boat has been misrepresented by the Company, and that their marketing claims are exaggerated... I think we covered that.. give that StrawMan a rest... you are debating, and claiming victory (as if it was a matter of importance) on a point that I have not contested.. yes the LW's wings engage, yes the Marketing of the boat is AHEM.... imaginative.

Now with my Blackburn example... that straw man becomes even more important.. because clearly the LW 18 is capable of keeping pace with similar boats... no acute disadvantage noted despite its wings... looks a good design... stability curve looks like a nice mix of primary (for fishing) and secondary (for seaworthy excursions...

and by the way... the original focus of the debate was around stability (whatever that is) and how it can co-exist with some notion of efficiency.

Now that looks like a tough debate...

But.. if we prop up the straw man again... outragous marketing, claims exaggerated... etc... then we can say that the design is slow.. its not measuring up to the boats that the company says it will... hence, what a lousy design, and a slow boat to boot!

The baby is out with the bathwater! good riddance

compared to racing yaks that we wouldnt dare fish off... why yes sir, you are correct! Compared to Yaks more alike... well? It would appear the LW 18 can hold its speed speed wise...

I'm not sure I have the strength or stamina to start talking about stability in comparison to some of those other boats the LW 18 paddled against. (And some one please whack me with a sack of doorknobs if I begin discussing that)


(THUMP... The Straw Man is down and Capt' Jimbo raises his hand in Victory!!!)

Now a word regarding the insults (did you liken me to a Cockaroach!?)

God knows i have been equally as caustic with the Capt. at times... so how insulted do I have title to be?

Whatever.

[Santiago II]

I'll jump in here and suggest that we may want to stick to just the discussion at hand with the most pleasant of words and intentions.


It's a great discussion so I hope it continues and future posts don't require any editing.

[kfsrmn]

Well the discussion started out with a picture of the Freedom and digressed from there. I owned a Freedom before the Tarpon came out. I rigged it for fishing and caught 30 lb salmon in the American river from it. I broke off 20 lb test line on snags and it did not come close to tipping. I tried the Tarpon 160 when it came out and prefered the freedom. The speed was very close and the Freedom was more manuverable. I had it out in some rough, windy conditions and it did not need a rudder or skeg but it did need thigh straps. I am really sorry I sold that boat but my wife kept complaining about the weight which was on the high side.
I have a Heritage Shearwater which is 18' and have some rigging on it for fishing. It still weighs in at 44 lbs. I have been chasing stipers on Lake Havasu with it lately, kind of playing around with it. I have not caught any of real size. Not like the ocean run you guys get. A 5 pounder is a good fish here. Double didgits are few and far between.

[RiverRaider]

"....Turns out the Little Wing was entered in the commuter class, the slowest class, the race for fun class of touring kayaks."

"...This is the "recreational touring class"...

For the sake of accuracy, the LW 18 was in the "Kayaks A Touring Single: Men"

The Class "above" was "Kayaks Fast Touring single:Men"

There were a few boats which appeared in both classes such as the Seda Glider and Epic 18 and the surge (hence my remark about the LW 18 being classed with these boats, for which the Capt. likened me to a Cokaroach.. no wait.. he said I was a lying.. I was a cokaroach for something else..)

Oh.. maybe it would have been more accurate to say that the LW 18 came in ahead of those boats.. sorry

You are correct about the Fast Touring Class boats being of different dimension...

Indeed the top *5 boats in the fast Touring class averaged a beam which was, on average, a whopping and I mean whopping, 3\4 of an inch... narrower, than the top 5 "Kayak A" class boats

Average length differential: about 8 inches, the fast touring class being longer by that.

The fix was in from the start.. obviously... where? I have no idea.. but obviously..it was like racing a ferrari against a Vette' (ohhh sorry... bad anology.. Vette' usually at least holds it own)


"Their beam waterline is around 19 or 20 inches. The Little Wing at 18', and a claimed 17.8" waterline is a perfect fit in this class. How'd it do? Not very well, 22nd out of 27."


Well which is it? a narrow beam, or a wide, wing soaking beam... it was wide when the debate centered around surface area (still waiting for the source of those surface areas... that's thrice asked) is it now narrow? That 17.8 # was with a scrawny 150# onboard as I recall, Now I am befuddled!

Good lord do i feel like a Special Olympian tonite... wheres my gold medal?

Oh well... lets talk about how tippy the LW18 is next,, that ought to be fun!

I'm saving all my SD 14 and SD 17 banter for a rainy day.



*Disclaimer* all #'s pulled off builders websites, all number are dry, wetted #'s not used as only a handful of those figures were available, # 5 chosen cuz thats all I could bear to figure.. LW 18 beam measured at 22". Any math errors unintentional.

[RiverRaider]

I have a Heritage Shearwater which is 18' and have some rigging on it for fishing. It still weighs in at 44 lbs. I have been chasing stipers on Lake Havasu with it lately, kind of playing around with it. I have not caught any of real size. Not like the ocean run you guys get. A 5 pounder is a good fish here. Double didgits are few and far between.


And how are those sponsons treating you? drag you down do they? Or.. do they provide you with a little extra bouyancy and stability when they engage? I really am curious.. maybe the capt.s right and I have it all wrong?

The Freedom looks a bit like the Sea Dart (ShearWater like) are they similar?

[lconn4]

Originally posted by kfsrmn:
I tried the Tarpon 160 when it came out and prefered the freedom. The speed was very close and the Freedom was more manuverable. I had it out in some rough, windy conditions and it did not need a rudder or skeg but it did need thigh straps.


Manuverability is my #1 priority in choosing a yak. 16 footers in windy conditions, even with a rudder, are a bear to turn. Unless someone needs the longer yaks to carry their weight properly, I believe most fishermen would be better severed with a 14 to 15 foot yak...the extra speed gained by a longer yak is minimal and could be found in a shorter yak with more time on water and improved paddling technique.

[kfsrmn]

The Freedom and the sponsoned Heritage boats are 2 different designs. The Freedom was a good all around boat. I wish WS would bring it out again in thremoform or comp as it was too heavy in poly. Same weight as the Tarpon. The sponsons do give you quite a bit more stability when they engage but remember the main hull on the Shearwater is only 19" wide and the sponsons add another 5". Works great on flat water but do start to drag when the water gets textured. The boat is still only 24" wide with the sponsons in the water. Think of paddling a ski and a touring boat.

[RiverRaider]

Originally posted by kfsrmn:
The Freedom and the sponsoned Heritage boats are 2 different designs. The Freedom was a good all around boat. I wish WS would bring it out again in thremoform or comp as it was too heavy in poly. Same weight as the Tarpon. The sponsons do give you quite a bit more stability when they engage but remember the main hull on the Shearwater is only 19" wide and the sponsons add another 5". Works great on flat water but do start to drag when the water gets textured. The boat is still only 24" wide with the sponsons in the water. Think of paddling a ski and a touring boat.

Sounds about the way its (fatter) cousin the SD 14 handles. better if your light.

[Socrates_thinks]

Hare Krishna, Hare Krishna, Krishna, Krishna, Haretage... (http://ftlauderdaleyakfishingclub.org/images/chantingfooles.wav)

[RiverRaider]

Everyone that saw that coming... please raise your hand.


Aw Jeeeez... Jimbo c'mon... lighten up would ya' I was enjoying the discussion... I want even mad about the Coakaroach thing (much)

I could scarecly care less about who's right or wrong... I was just getting ready to talk about relative stability etc... I hadnt even addressed the SeaDart thing... and your going to stomp yer' feet and hold your breath, take all your kayaks and go home, refuse to play with us?

No hard feelings Jimbo... life is waaaaaay to short

[kfsrmn]

I weigh in between 165/170 and I think the weight is about right for the Shearwater. I know several ladies that like to paddle the Shearwater because they can keep up with the stronger paddlers. The boat is sensitive to wind but the skeg I designed for it has really taken care of the problem. It took several attempts to get it right. Too much skeg and it does not turn. The boat has a fixed skeg set in a skeg box designed to take surf board skegs.

[Socrates_thinks]

http://www.ftlauderdaleyakfishingclub.org/images/Akido.gif

[RiverRaider]

Jimbo,

Open up Bearboat and fiddle the generic yak.. pull out the seams in the middle ala' SeaDart and then run the stability... the results wont surprize you I am sure http://kfs.infopop.cc/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif
If you can fiqure out how to replicate the design notion of the littlewing give that a try as well.. its tough to get that "Wasp" shape with Bearboat.. maybe one of the other programs we spoke of earlier..

I would like to see how moving the location the boats maximmum water line width effects stability and wetted area... if you can mock something up let er' rip... Im far more interested in design concepts than I am in baiting and flaming. http://www.kayakfishingstuff.com/images/maps/nono.gif

[Socrates_thinks]

There's a time to hold em and a time to fold em.
.
http://www.ftlauderdaleyakfishingclub.org/images/roachswatter.gif

.

Shoulda folded...

[RiverRaider]

And I guess we can see what your interested in http://www.kayakfishingstuff.com/images/maps/nono.gif

A point to clarify...

The SD 17 has a wet beam of 23" not 22" see you where right... feel better? http://www.kayakfishingstuff.com/images/maps/dontknow.gif

[ricksconnected]

Originally posted by RiverRaider:
... and your going to stomp yer' feet and hold your breath, take all your kayaks and go home, refuse to play with us?

http://www.kayakfishingstuff.com/images/maps/hammer.gif http://www.kayakfishingstuff.com/images/maps/rofl.gif http://www.kayakfishingstuff.com/images/maps/rofl.gif http://www.kayakfishingstuff.com/images/maps/rofl.gif

[ricksconnected]

boy, i bet with a few of these yaks, one could troll the h3ll out of a rapala or two. http://www.kayakfishingstuff.com/images/maps/rofl.gif